Case 1:17-cv LY Document 1 Filed 03/17/17 Page 1 of 22 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
|
|
- Gary Elwin York
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Case 1:17-cv LY Document 1 Filed 03/17/17 Page 1 of 22 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS Synergy Drone, LLC, Civil Action No. 1:17-cv v. Plaintiff, The Honorable SZ DJI Technology Co., Ltd., DJI Europe B.V., and DJI Technology, Inc., Defendants. COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT JURY TRIAL DEMANDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: Plaintiff Synergy Drone, LLC, ( Synergy Drone ), files this Complaint for Patent Infringement and Damages against SZ DJI Technology Co., Ltd., DJI Europe B.V., and DJI Technology, Inc. (collectively, Defendants ), and would respectfully show the Court as follows: PARTIES 1. Plaintiff Synergy Drone is a Texas Corporation with its principal place of business located at 2802 Flintrock Trace, Suite 352, Austin, TX On information and belief, Defendant SZ DJI Technology Co., Ltd. is a Chinese corporation with its principal place of business at 14th Floor, West Wing, Skyworth Semiconductor Design Building, No. 18 Gaoxin South 4th Ave, Nanshan District, Shenzhen, China. On information and belief, SZ DJI Technology Co., Ltd. is responsible for the development of DJI branded products sold in the United States. Although SZ DJI Technology Co., Ltd. is engaged in business in the State of Texas, it has not designated an agent for service of process in the State. The Secretary of State, therefore, is an agent for service of process for SZ DJI Technology Co., Ltd. pursuant to TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE (b). 1
2 Case 1:17-cv LY Document 1 Filed 03/17/17 Page 2 of On information and belief, Defendant DJI Europe B.V. is a European corporation with its principal place of business at Bijdorp-Oost 6, 2992 LA Barendrecht, Netherlands. On information and belief, DJI Europe B.V. sells DJI branded products in the United States. Although DJI Europe B.V. is engaged in business in the State of Texas, it has not designated an agent for service of process in the State. The Secretary of State, therefore, is an agent for service of process for DJI Europe B.V. pursuant to TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE (b). 4. On information and belief, Defendant DJI Technology, Inc. is a United States corporation with its principal place of business at 201 S. Victory Boulevard, Burbank, California 91502, with a registered agent for service of process at: CT Corporation System, 818 W. 7th Street, Suite 930, Los Angeles, California On information and belief, DJI Technology, Inc. sells DJI branded products in the United States. Although DJI Technology, Inc. is engaged in business in the State of Texas, it has not designated an agent for service of process in the State. The Secretary of State, therefore, is an agent for service of process for DJI Technology, Inc. pursuant to TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE (b). 5. Defendants transact business within the State of Texas and in this judicial district, and have committed acts of patent infringement as hereinafter set forth within the State of Texas and this judicial district. Such business includes, without limitation, Defendants operation of the Internet website, which is available to and accessed by users, customers, and potential customers of the Defendants within this judicial district, and the sale of Defendants drone and drone-related products within this judicial district. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 6. This is a civil action for patent infringement arising under the acts of Congress relating to patents, namely the Patent Laws of the United States as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 271, 2
3 Case 1:17-cv LY Document 1 Filed 03/17/17 Page 3 of 22 et seq. 7. This Court has federal subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C and 1338(a). 8. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants pursuant to TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE et seq. Personal jurisdiction generally exists over Defendants because Defendants have minimum contacts with this forum as a result of business regularly conducted within the State of Texas and within this district, and, on information and belief, specifically as a result of, at least, committing the tort of patent infringement within Texas and this district. Personal jurisdiction also exists because, on information and belief, Defendants have operated the Internet website, which is available to and accessed by users, customers, and potential customers of the Defendants within this judicial district, sold Defendants drone and drone-related products within this judicial district, transacted business within the State of Texas, actively infringed and/or induced infringement in Texas, and/or established regular and systematic business contacts within the State of Texas and continue to conduct such business in Texas through the sale of Defendants drone and drone-related products. Accordingly, this Court's jurisdiction over the Defendants comports with the constitutional standards of fair play and substantial justice and arises directly from the Defendants purposeful minimum contact with the State of Texas. 9. Venue is proper in this Court under 28 U.S.C. 1391(b) and (c) and 28 U.S.C. 1400(b) based on the information and belief that the Defendants have committed or induced acts of infringement, and/or advertise, market, sell, and/or offer to sell products, including infringing products, in this judicial district. 3
4 Case 1:17-cv LY Document 1 Filed 03/17/17 Page 4 of 22 THE PATENTS-IN-SUIT 10. On June 12, 2012, United States Patent No. 8,200,375 ( the 375 patent ), entitled Radio Controlled Aircraft, Remote Controller and Methods for Use Therewith, was duly and legally issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office to Katherine C. Stuckman and Michael D. Reynolds. A copy of the 375 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 11. On February 19, 2013, United States Patent No. 8,380,368 ( the 368 patent ), entitled Radio Controlled Aircraft, Remote Controller and Methods for Use Therewith, was duly and legally issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office to Katherine C. Stuckman and Michael D. Reynolds. A copy of the 368 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit B. 12. On February 11, 2014, United States Patent No. 8,649,918 ( the 918 patent ), entitled Radio Controlled Aircraft, Remote Controller and Methods for Use Therewith, was duly and legally issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office to Katherine C. Stuckman and Michael D. Reynolds. A copy of the 918 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit C. 13. On July 14, 2015, United States Patent No. 9,079,116 ( the 116 patent ), entitled Radio Controlled Aircraft, Remote Controller and Methods for Use Therewith, was duly and legally issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office to Katherine C. Stuckman and Michael D. Reynolds. A copy of the 116 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit D. 14. On February 14, 2017, United States Patent No. 9,568,913 ( the 913 patent ), entitled Radio Controlled Aircraft, Remote Controller and Methods for Use Therewith, was duly and legally issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office to Katherine C. Stuckman and Michael D. Reynolds. A copy of the 913 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit E. 15. The 375, 368, 918, 116, and 913 patents are referred to hereinafter as the Synergy Drone Patents. 4
5 Case 1:17-cv LY Document 1 Filed 03/17/17 Page 5 of Plaintiff Synergy Drone is the owner of the entire right, title, and interest in and to the Synergy Drone Patents. The Synergy Drone Patents were assigned by Katherine C. Stuckman and Michael D. Reynolds to Kamike Technologies, LLP on August 3, Kamike Technologies, LLP assigned the Synergy Drone Patents to Drone Control, LLC on December 23, Drone Control, LLC subsequently assigned the Synergy Drone Patents to Plaintiff Synergy Drone, and this assignment was recorded on December 23, 2016, at the United States Patent and Trademark Office. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 17. Plaintiff Synergy Drone owns patents relating to methods, systems, and devices for controlling radio-controlled vehicles, including helicopters and other aircraft ( RC vehicles ). 18. Plaintiff Synergy Drone protects its proprietary rights in such technologies through the use of patents. For example, Synergy Drone owns patents relating to improvements in controlling RC vehicles in modes other than from the perspective of the RC vehicle, such as from the perspective of a remote control device or a user of a remote control device. 19. Defendants develop, manufacture, market, and distribute drones and drone-related products, both in the United States and internationally. 20. Many of the Defendants drone and drone-related products utilize control modes that allow the user to control the Defendants products in a mode from a perspective of a remote control device or a user of a remote control device, rather than from the perspective of the drone or drone-related product being controlled. For example, some of Defendants products operate in Intelligent Flight Modes, which include at least Course Lock mode and Home Lock mode, both of which allow the user to control the product from a perspective of a remote control device or a user of a remote control device. 5
6 Case 1:17-cv LY Document 1 Filed 03/17/17 Page 6 of Defendants have incorporated innovative features of the Synergy Drone Patents into their drone and drone-related products, as explained below. COUNT I PATENT INFRINGEMENT OF THE 375 PATENT 22. Plaintiff Synergy Drone repeats and realleges the above paragraphs, which are incorporated by reference as if fully restated herein. patent. 23. Plaintiff Synergy Drone is the owner of all rights, title, and interest in the Plaintiff Synergy Drone has never licensed any of the Defendants under the 375 patent, nor has Plaintiff Synergy Drone otherwise authorized any of the Defendants to practice any part of the 375 patent. 25. On information and belief, Defendants manufacture and market DJI branded products. Exhibit F. 26. On information and belief, Defendants distribute, sell, and market such DJI branded products, as well as remote controls, parts, and accessories for such DJI branded products. Exhibit G. 27. On information and belief, Defendants have directly infringed and continue to directly infringe, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, one or more claims of the 375 patent, including for example (but not limited to) at least claims 1-8 of the 375 patent by making, using, selling, offering to sell, or importing, without license or authority, Defendants suite of drone and drone-related products, including, but not limited to, at least DJI products that correspond to DJI branded model lines Phantom 3 and Phantom 4, without Plaintiff Synergy Drone s authorization, in violation of 35 U.S.C. 271(a). See Exhibit H. 6
7 Case 1:17-cv LY Document 1 Filed 03/17/17 Page 7 of On information and belief, Defendants have and continue to promote, advertise, and instruct customers and potential customers about DJI branded products and how to use DJI branded products, including infringing uses. Defendants promotion, advertising, and instruction efforts include, at a minimum, maintenance of the website the production and distribution of instruction manuals, and other indicia included within or printed on the packaging of DJI branded products. See Exhibit I. Defendants also provide an application for mobile computing devices, such as smartphones and tablets, which allows consumers to use the infringing features of the products. On information and belief, Defendants engaged in these acts with the actual intent to cause the acts which they knew or should have known would induce actual infringement. 29. Defendants had constructive, if not actual, notice of the existence of the 375 patent and have been aware of the 375 patent since at least May 23, 2016, because on that date, the United States Patent and Trademark Office cited the 375 patent in a List of References Cited by Examiner in connection with Defendants own patent, U.S. Patent No. D See Exhibit J. Furthermore, the 375 patent is well-known in the industry having been cited in at least eight issued patents since its filing date, including Defendant s own patent U.S. Patent No. D Nicolas Labbit, general manager of Drone Control, LLC, the immediate past predecessor in interest of the 375 patent, sent a letter to Defendants on September 28, 2016 apprising Defendants of the 375 patent. Therefore, Defendants had actual knowledge of the 375 patent at least as of September 28, And yet, even with full knowledge of Synergy Drone s patent rights, Defendants have continued to commit acts of infringement and have failed to cease their infringing activities. Because Defendants have been aware of the 375 patent but 7
8 Case 1:17-cv LY Document 1 Filed 03/17/17 Page 8 of 22 acted despite an objectively high likelihood that their actions constituted infringement of a valid patent, Defendants infringement has been, and continues to be, willful. 31. On information and belief, Defendants knew or should have known that at least DJI branded model lines listed above in paragraph 27 utilize at least two Intelligent Flight Modes that allow the user to control the Defendants products in modes from a perspective of a remote control device, Course Lock and Home Lock, which are especially made or especially adapted for use in an infringement of at least claims 1-8 of the 375 patent and have no substantially non-infringing uses in these drones and drone-related products. 32. On information and belief, the portions of Defendants products that allow the user to control the Defendants products in modes from a perspective of a remote control device, specifically, at least, Course Lock and Home Lock, including DJI branded products made, marketed, used, sold, offered to sell, or imported by Defendants, are not staple articles or commodities of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use. 33. On information and belief, Defendants actions have and continue to constitute active inducement and contributory infringement of at least claims 1-8 of the 375 patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. 271(b) and 271(c). 34. As a result of Defendants infringement of at least claims 1-8 of the 375 patent, Plaintiff Synergy Drone has suffered monetary damages in an amount yet to be determined, and will continue to suffer damages in the future unless Defendants infringing activities are enjoined by this Court. 35. Defendants wrongful acts have damaged and will continue to damage Plaintiff Synergy Drone irreparably, and Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law for those wrongs and injuries. In addition to its actual damages, Plaintiff Synergy Drone is entitled to a permanent 8
9 Case 1:17-cv LY Document 1 Filed 03/17/17 Page 9 of 22 injunction restraining and enjoining Defendants and their respective agents, servants and employees, and all persons acting thereunder, in concert with, or on its behalf, from infringing at least claims 1-8 of the 375 patent. COUNT II PATENT INFRINGEMENT OF THE 368 PATENT 36. Plaintiff Synergy Drone repeats and realleges the above paragraphs, which are incorporated by reference as if fully restated herein. patent. 37. Plaintiff Synergy Drone is the owner of all rights, title, and interest in the Plaintiff Synergy Drone has never licensed any of the Defendants under the 368 patent, nor has Plaintiff Synergy Drone otherwise authorized any of the Defendants to practice any part of the 368 patent. 39. On information and belief, Defendants manufacture and market DJI branded products. Exhibit F. 40. On information and belief, Defendants distribute, sell, and market such DJI branded products, as well as remote controls, parts, and accessories for such DJI branded products. Exhibit G. 41. On information and belief, Defendants have directly infringed and continue to directly infringe, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, one or more claims of the 368 patent, including for example (but not limited to) at least claims 1-8 and of the 368 patent by making, using, selling, offering to sell, or importing, without license or authority, Defendants suite of drone and drone-related products, including, but limited to, at least DJI products that correspond to DJI branded model lines Phantom 3 and Phantom 4, without Plaintiff Synergy Drone s authorization, in violation of 35 U.S.C. 271(a). See Exhibit H. 9
10 Case 1:17-cv LY Document 1 Filed 03/17/17 Page 10 of On information and belief, Defendants have and continue to promote, advertise, and instruct customers and potential customers about DJI branded products and how to use DJI branded products, including infringing uses. Defendants promotion, advertising, and instruction efforts include, at a minimum, maintenance of the website the production and distribution of instruction manuals, and other indicia included within or printed on the packaging of DJI branded products. See Exhibit I. Defendants also provide an application for mobile computing devices, such as smartphones and tablets, which allows consumers to use the infringing features of the products. On information and belief, Defendants engaged in these acts with the actual intent to cause the acts which they knew or should have known would induce actual infringement. 43. Nicolas Labbit, general manager of Drone Control, LLC, the immediate past predecessor in interest of the 368 patent, sent a letter to Defendants on September 28, 2016 apprising Defendants of the 368 patent. Therefore, Defendants had actual knowledge of the 368 patent at least as of September 28, And yet, even with full knowledge of Synergy Drone s patent rights, Defendants have continued to commit acts of infringement and have failed to cease their infringing activities. Because Defendants have been aware of the 368 patent but acted despite an objectively high likelihood that their actions constituted infringement of a valid patent, Defendants infringement has been, and continues to be, willful. 44. On information and belief, Defendants knew or should have known that at least DJI branded model lines listed above in paragraph 41 utilize at least two Intelligent Flight Modes that allow the user to control the Defendants products in modes from a perspective of a remote control device, Course Lock and Home Lock, which are especially made or 10
11 Case 1:17-cv LY Document 1 Filed 03/17/17 Page 11 of 22 especially adapted for use in an infringement of at least claims 1-8 of the 368 patent and have no substantially non-infringing uses in these drones and drone-related products. 45. On information and belief, the portions of Defendants products that allow the user to control the Defendants products in modes from a perspective of a remote control device or a user of a remote control device, specifically, at least, Course Lock and Home Lock, including DJI branded products made, marketed, used, sold, offered to sell, or imported by Defendants, are not staple articles or commodities of commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing use. 46. On information and belief, Defendants actions have and continue to constitute active inducement and contributory infringement of at least claims 1-8 and of the 368 patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. 271(b) and 271(c). 47. As a result of Defendants infringement of at least claims 1-8 and of the 368 patent, Plaintiff Synergy Drone has suffered monetary damages in an amount yet to be determined, and will continue to suffer damages in the future unless Defendants infringing activities are enjoined by this Court. 48. Defendants wrongful acts have damaged and will continue to damage Plaintiff Synergy Drone irreparably, and Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law for those wrongs and injuries. In addition to its actual damages, Plaintiff Synergy Drone is entitled to a permanent injunction restraining and enjoining Defendants and their respective agents, servants and employees, and all persons acting thereunder, in concert with, or on its behalf, from infringing at least claims 1-8 and of the 368 patent. 11
12 Case 1:17-cv LY Document 1 Filed 03/17/17 Page 12 of 22 COUNT III PATENT INFRINGEMENT OF THE 918 PATENT 49. Plaintiff Synergy Drone repeats and realleges the above paragraphs, which are incorporated by reference as if fully restated herein. patent. 50. Plaintiff Synergy Drone is the owner of all rights, title, and interest in the Plaintiff Synergy Drone has never licensed any of the Defendants under the 918 patent, nor has Plaintiff Synergy Drone otherwise authorized any of the Defendants to practice any part of the 918 patent. 52. On information and belief, Defendants manufacture and market DJI branded products. Exhibit F. 53. On information and belief, Defendants distribute, sell, and market such DJI branded products, as well as remote controls, parts, and accessories for such DJI branded products. Exhibit G. 54. On information and belief, Defendants have directly infringed and continue to directly infringe, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, one or more claims of the 918 patent, including for example (but not limited to) at least claims 1-8 and of the 918 patent by making, using, selling, offering to sell, or importing, without license or authority, Defendants suite of drone and drone-related products, including, but not limited to, at least DJI products that correspond to DJI branded model lines Phantom 3 and Phantom 4, without Plaintiff Synergy Drone s authorization, in violation of 35 U.S.C. 271(a). See Exhibit H. 55. On information and belief, Defendants have and continue to promote, advertise, and instruct customers and potential customers about DJI branded products and how to use DJI branded products, including infringing uses. Defendants promotion, advertising, and instruction 12
13 Case 1:17-cv LY Document 1 Filed 03/17/17 Page 13 of 22 efforts include, at a minimum, maintenance of the website the production and distribution of instruction manuals, and other indicia included within or printed on the packaging of DJI branded products. See Exhibit I. Defendants also provide an application for mobile computing devices, such as smartphones and tablets, which allows consumers to use the infringing features of the products. On information and belief, Defendants engaged in these acts with the actual intent to cause the acts which they knew or should have known would induce actual infringement. 56. Nicolas Labbit, general manager of Drone Control, LLC, the immediate past predecessor in interest of the 918 patent, sent a letter to Defendants on September 28, 2016 apprising Defendants of the 918 patent. Therefore, Defendants had actual knowledge of the 918 patent at least as of September 28, And yet, even with full knowledge of Synergy Drone s patent rights, Defendants have continued to commit acts of infringement and have failed to cease their infringing activities. Because Defendants have been aware of the 918 patent but acted despite an objectively high likelihood that their actions constituted infringement of a valid patent, Defendants infringement has been, and continues to be, willful. 57. On information and belief, Defendants knew or should have known that at least DJI branded model lines listed above in paragraph 54 utilize at least two Intelligent Flight Modes that allow the user to control the Defendants products in modes from a perspective of a user of a remote control device, Course Lock and Home Lock, which are especially made or especially adapted for use in an infringement of at least claims 1-8 and of the 918 patent and have no substantially non-infringing uses in these drones and drone-related products. 58. On information and belief, the portions of Defendants products that allow the user to control the Defendants products in modes from a perspective of a user of a remote 13
14 Case 1:17-cv LY Document 1 Filed 03/17/17 Page 14 of 22 control device, specifically, at least, Course Lock and Home Lock, including DJI branded products made, marketed, used, sold, offered to sell, or imported by Defendants, are not staple articles or commodities of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use. 59. On information and belief, Defendants actions have and continue to constitute active inducement and contributory infringement of at least claims 1-8 and of the 918 patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. 271(b) and 271(c). 60. As a result of Defendants infringement of at least claims 1-8 and of the 918 patent, Plaintiff Synergy Drone has suffered monetary damages in an amount yet to be determined, and will continue to suffer damages in the future unless Defendants infringing activities are enjoined by this Court. 61. Defendants wrongful acts have damaged and will continue to damage Plaintiff Synergy Drone irreparably, and Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law for those wrongs and injuries. In addition to its actual damages, Plaintiff Synergy Drone is entitled to a permanent injunction restraining and enjoining Defendants and their respective agents, servants and employees, and all persons acting thereunder, in concert with, or on its behalf, from infringing at least claims 1-8 and of the 918 patent. COUNT IV PATENT INFRINGEMENT OF THE 116 PATENT 62. Plaintiff Synergy Drone repeats and realleges the above paragraphs, which are incorporated by reference as if fully restated herein. patent. 63. Plaintiff Synergy Drone is the owner of all rights, title, and interest in the
15 Case 1:17-cv LY Document 1 Filed 03/17/17 Page 15 of Plaintiff Synergy Drone has never licensed any of the Defendants under the 116 patent, nor has Plaintiff Synergy Drone otherwise authorized any of the Defendants to practice any part of the 116 patent. 65. On information and belief, Defendants manufacture and market DJI branded products. Exhibit F. 66. On information and belief, Defendants distribute, sell, and market such DJI branded products, as well as remote controls, parts, and accessories for such DJI branded products. Exhibit G. 67. On information and belief, Defendants have directly infringed and continue to directly infringe, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, one or more claims of the 116 patent, including for example (but not limited to) at least claims 1-15 of the 116 patent by making, using, selling, offering to sell, or importing, without license or authority, Defendants suite of drone and drone-related products, including, but not limited to, at least DJI products that correspond to DJI branded model lines Phantom 3 and Phantom 4, without Plaintiff Synergy Drone s authorization, in violation of 35 U.S.C. 271(a). See Exhibit H. 68. On information and belief, Defendants have and continue to promote, advertise, and instruct customers and potential customers about DJI branded products and how to use DJI branded products, including infringing uses. Defendants promotion, advertising, and instruction efforts include, at a minimum, maintenance of the website the production and distribution of instruction manuals, and other indicia included within or printed on the packaging of DJI branded products. See Exhibit I. Defendants also provide an application for mobile computing devices, such as smartphones and tablets, which allows consumers to use the infringing features of the products. On information and belief, Defendants 15
16 Case 1:17-cv LY Document 1 Filed 03/17/17 Page 16 of 22 engaged in these acts with the actual intent to cause the acts which they knew or should have known would induce actual infringement. 69. Nicolas Labbit, general manager of Drone Control, LLC, the immediate past predecessor in interest of the 116 patent, sent a letter to Defendants on September 28, 2016 apprising Defendants of the 116 patent. Therefore, Defendants had actual knowledge of the 116 patent at least as of September 28, And yet, even with full knowledge of Synergy Drone s patent rights, Defendants have continued to commit acts of infringement and have failed to cease their infringing activities. Because Defendants have been aware of the 116 patent but acted despite an objectively high likelihood that their actions constituted infringement of a valid patent, Defendants infringement has been, and continues to be, willful. 70. On information and belief, Defendants knew or should have known that at least DJI branded model lines listed above in paragraph 67 utilize at least two Intelligent Flight Modes that allow the user to control the Defendants products in modes from a perspective of a remote control device, Course Lock and Home Lock, which are especially made or especially adapted for use in an infringement of at least claims 1-15 of the 116 patent and have no substantially non-infringing uses in these drones and drone-related products. 71. On information and belief, the portions of Defendants products that allow the user to control the Defendants products in modes from a perspective of a remote control device, specifically, at least, Course Lock and Home Lock, including DJI branded products made, marketed, used, sold, offered to sell, or imported by Defendants, are not staple articles or commodities of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use. 16
17 Case 1:17-cv LY Document 1 Filed 03/17/17 Page 17 of On information and belief, Defendants actions have and continue to constitute active inducement and contributory infringement of at least claims 1-15 of the 116 patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. 271(b) and 271(c). 73. As a result of Defendants infringement of at least claims 1-15 of the 116 patent, Plaintiff Synergy Drone has suffered monetary damages in an amount yet to be determined, and will continue to suffer damages in the future unless Defendants infringing activities are enjoined by this Court. 74. Defendants wrongful acts have damaged and will continue to damage Plaintiff Synergy Drone irreparably, and Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law for those wrongs and injuries. In addition to its actual damages, Plaintiff Synergy Drone is entitled to a permanent injunction restraining and enjoining Defendants and their respective agents, servants and employees, and all persons acting thereunder, in concert with, or on its behalf, from infringing at least claims 1-15 of the 116 patent. COUNT V PATENT INFRINGEMENT OF THE 913 PATENT 75. Plaintiff Synergy Drone repeats and realleges the above paragraphs, which are incorporated by reference as if fully restated herein. patent. 76. Plaintiff Synergy Drone is the owner of all rights, title, and interest in the Plaintiff Synergy Drone has never licensed any of the Defendants under the 913 patent, nor has Plaintiff Synergy Drone otherwise authorized any of the Defendants to practice any part of the 913 patent. 78. On information and belief, Defendants manufacture and market DJI branded products. Exhibit F. 17
18 Case 1:17-cv LY Document 1 Filed 03/17/17 Page 18 of On information and belief, Defendants distribute, sell, and market such DJI branded products, as well as remote controls, parts, and accessories for such DJI branded products. Exhibit G. 80. On information and belief, Defendants have directly infringed and continue to directly infringe, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, one or more claims of the 913 patent, including for example (but not limited to) at least claims 1, 3-6, 8-11, and of the 913 patent by making, using, selling, offering to sell, or importing, without license or authority, Defendants suite of drone and drone-related products, including, but not limited to, at least DJI products that correspond to DJI branded model lines Phantom 3 and Phantom 4, without Plaintiff Synergy Drone s authorization, in violation of 35 U.S.C. 271(a). See Exhibit H. 81. On information and belief, Defendants have and continue to promote, advertise, and instruct customers and potential customers about DJI branded products and how to use DJI branded products, including infringing uses. Defendants promotion, advertising, and instruction efforts include, at a minimum, maintenance of the website the production and distribution of instruction manuals, and other indicia included within or printed on the packaging of DJI branded products. See Exhibit I. Defendants also provide an application for mobile computing devices, such as smartphones and tablets, which allows consumers to use the infringing features of the products. On information and belief, Defendants engaged in these acts with the actual intent to cause the acts which they knew or should have known would induce actual infringement. 82. On information and belief, Defendants knew or should have known that at least DJI branded model lines listed above in paragraph 80 utilize at least two Intelligent Flight 18
19 Case 1:17-cv LY Document 1 Filed 03/17/17 Page 19 of 22 Modes that allow the user to control the Defendants products in modes from a perspective of a remote control device, Course Lock and Home Lock, which are especially made or especially adapted for use in an infringement of at least claims 1, 3-6, 8-11, and of the 913 patent and have no substantially non-infringing uses in these drones and drone-related products. 83. On information and belief, the portions of Defendants products that allow the user to control the Defendants products in modes from a perspective of a remote control device or a user of a remote control device, specifically, at least, Course Lock and Home Lock, including DJI branded products made, marketed, used, sold, offered to sell, or imported by Defendants, are not staple articles or commodities of commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing use. 84. On information and belief, Defendants actions have and continue to constitute active inducement and contributory infringement of at least claims 1, 3-6, 8-11, and of the 913 patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. 271(b) and 271(c). 85. The Defendants could have learned of the 913 patent when it issued. When Nicolas Labbit, general manager of Drone Control, LLC, the immediate past predecessor in interest of the 375, 368, 918, 116, and 913 patents, sent a letter to Defendants on September 28, 2016 apprising Defendants of the 375, 368, 918, and 116 patents, the application that led to the 913 patent was pending at the United States Patent Office, and is directly related to the 375, 368, 918, and 116 patents. Defendants could have easily monitored this application until the 913 patent issued on February 14, Therefore, Defendants either knew or should have known about the 913 patent at least as of February 14, 2017 when the 913 patent issued. And yet, Defendants have continued to commit acts of infringement and have failed to cease their 19
20 Case 1:17-cv LY Document 1 Filed 03/17/17 Page 20 of 22 infringing activities. Because Defendants either knew or should have known of the 913 patent but acted despite an objectively high likelihood that their actions constituted infringement of a valid patent, Defendants infringement has been, and continues to be, willful. 86. As a result of Defendants infringement of at least claims 1, 3-6, 8-11, and of the 913 patent, Plaintiff Synergy Drone has suffered monetary damages in an amount yet to be determined, and will continue to suffer damages in the future unless Defendants infringing activities are enjoined by this Court. 87. Defendants wrongful acts have damaged and will continue to damage Plaintiff Synergy Drone irreparably, and Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law for those wrongs and injuries. In addition to its actual damages, Plaintiff Synergy Drone is entitled to a permanent injunction restraining and enjoining Defendants and their respective agents, servants and employees, and all persons acting thereunder, in concert with, or on its behalf, from infringing at least claims 1, 3-6, 8-11, and of the 913 patent. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Synergy Drone respectfully requests that this Court enter: A. A judgment in favor of Plaintiff Synergy Drone that Defendants have been and are infringing at least claims 1-8 of the 375 patent, claims 1-8 and of the 368 patent, claims 1-8 and of the 918 patent, claims 1-15 of the 116 patent, and claims 1, 3-6, 8-11, and of the 913 patent, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 271(a), 271(b) and/or 271(c); B. A preliminary and permanent injunction enjoining Defendants and their respective officers, directors, agents, servants, affiliates, employees, divisions, branches, subsidiaries, parents, and all others acting in concert or privity with any of them from infringing, inducing the infringement of, or contributing to the infringement of, at least claims 1-8 of the 20
21 Case 1:17-cv LY Document 1 Filed 03/17/17 Page 21 of patent, claims 1-8 and of the 368 patent, claims 1-8 and of the 918 patent, claims 1-15 of the 116 patent, and claims 1, 3-6, 8-11, and of the 913 patent; C. A judgment awarding Plaintiff Synergy Drone all damages adequate to compensate it for Defendants infringement of the Synergy Drone Patents, and in no event less than a reasonable royalty for Defendants acts of infringement, including all pre-judgment and post-judgment interest at the maximum rate permitted by law, as a result of Defendants infringement of at least claims 1-8 of the 375 patent, claims 1-8 and of the 368 patent, claims 1-8 and of the 918 patent, claims 1-15 of the 116 patent, and claims 1, 3-6, 8-11, and of the 913 patent; D. An award of enhanced damages as a result of SZ DJI Technology Co., Ltd. s, DJI Europe B.V. s, and DJI Technology, Inc. s willful infringement of at least claims 1-8 of the 375 patent, claims 1-8 and of the 368 patent, claims 1-8 and of the 918 patent, and claims 1-15 of the 116 patent, after being apprised of these patents, as provided under 35 U.S.C. 284; E. An assessment of costs, including reasonable attorney fees pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 285, and prejudgment interest against Defendants; and F. Such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 38, Plaintiff Synergy Drone hereby demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable. 21
22 Case 1:17-cv LY Document 1 Filed 03/17/17 Page 22 of 22 Respectfully submitted, Dated: March 17, 2017 /s/ Leif R. Sigmond, Jr. Leif R. Sigmond, Jr. (IL ID No ) (sigmond@mbhb.com) Michael D. Gannon (IL ID No ) (gannon@mbhb.com) Marcus J. Thymian (IL ID No ) (thymian@mbhb.com) Jennifer M. Kurcz (IL ID No ) (kurcz@mbhb.com) George T. Lyons, III (IL ID No ) (lyons@mbhb.com) McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP 300 South Wacker Drive Chicago, Illinois Tel.: (312) Fax: (312) Attorneys for Plaintiff, SYNERGY DRONE, LLC. 22
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS BEIJING CHOICE ELECTRONIC TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD., v. Plaintiff, CONTEC MEDICAL SYSTEMS USA INC. and CONTEC MEDICAL SYSTEMS CO., LTD.,
More informationCase 1:14-cv Document 1 Filed 02/18/14 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION
Case 1:14-cv-00149 Document 1 Filed 02/18/14 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION CROSSROADS SYSTEMS, INC., Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:14-cv-00149
More informationCase 2:16-cv Document 1 Filed 12/05/16 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: 1
Case 2:16-cv-01358 Document 1 Filed 12/05/16 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: 1 AXCESS INTERNATIONAL, INC., IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION v. Plaintiff, DUAL
More informationCase 1:18-cv YK Document 1 Filed 06/07/18 Page 1 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Case 1:18-cv-01161-YK Document 1 Filed 06/07/18 Page 1 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA TECHNICAL LED INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, LLC., Plaintiff, Civil Action
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION. Plaintiff, Case No: COMPLAINT
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION INNOVATIONS LLC Plaintiff, Case No: vs. PATENT CASE MICHAEL S STORES, INC., Defendant. COMPLAINT
More informationCase 6:17-cv Document 1 Filed 04/05/17 Page 1 of 10 PageID #: 1
Case 6:17-cv-00203 Document 1 Filed 04/05/17 Page 1 of 10 PageID #: 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION FALL LINE PATENTS, LLC, Plaintiff, v. CINEMARK
More informationCase 1:99-mc Document 417 Filed 05/23/12 Page 1 of 10 PageID #: IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
Case 1:99-mc-09999 Document 417 Filed 05/23/12 Page 1 of 10 PageID #: 26760 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE FLASHPOINT TECHNOLOGY, INC., CIVIL ACTION NO. Plaintiff, v.
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION CHARLES C. FREENY III, BRYAN E. FREENY, and JAMES P. FREENY, Plaintiffs, Case No. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED v. HTC AMERICA,
More informationPlaintiff Privacy Pop, LLC ( Plaintiff ) complains and alleges as follows against Defendant Gimme Gimme, LLC ( Defendant ).
0 0 Robert J. Lauson (,) bob@lauson.com Edwin P. Tarver, (0,) edwin@lauson.com LAUSON & TARVER LLP 0 Apollo St., Suite. 0 El Segundo, CA 0 Tel. (0) -0 Fax (0) -0 Attorneys for Plaintiff Privacy Pop, LLC
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
Case:-cv-00-DMR Document Filed0// Page of 0 ANTON HANDAL (Bar No. ) anh@handal-law.com PAMELA C. CHALK (Bar No. ) pchalk@handal-law.com GABRIEL HEDRICK (Bar No. 0) ghedrick@handal-law.com 0 B Street, Suite
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON PORTLAND DIVISION
David W. Axelrod, OSB #750231 Email: daxelrod@schwabe.com Devon Zastrow Newman, OSB #014627 Email: dnewman@schwabe.com Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt, P.C. 1211 SW 5th Ave., Suite 1900 Telephone: 503.222.9981
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
Case 1:99-mc-09999 Document 186 Filed 04/29/11 Page 1 of 9 PageID #: 17113 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE AUGME TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Plaintiff, Civil Action No. v. PANDORA MEDIA,
More informationCase 2:16-cv JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 10/19/16 Page 1 of 8 PageID #: 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
Case 2:16-cv-01186-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 10/19/16 Page 1 of 8 PageID #: 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SPIN MASTER, LTD., Plaintiff, v. HELLODISCOUNTSTORE.COM,
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION
Case 6:10-cv-00302-LED Document 1 Filed 06/17/10 Page 1 of 19 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION LANDMARK TECHNOLOGY, LLC, Plaintiff, v. BLOCKBUSTER INC.,
More informationCase5:14-cv PSG Document1 Filed10/10/14 Page1 of 10. Attorneys for Plaintiff ENPHASE ENERGY, INC. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Case:-cv-0-PSG Document Filed0/0/ Page of 0 0 DANIEL JOHNSON, JR. (State Bar No. 0) MICHAEL J. LYONS (State Bar No. 0) DION M. BREGMAN (State Bar No. 0) Palo Alto Square 000 El Camino Real, Suite 00 Palo
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION PLAINTIFF S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION T-REX PROPERTY AB, Plaintiff, v. CBS Corporation, Defendant. CIVIL ACTION NO. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PLAINTIFF S ORIGINAL
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
Aloft Media LLC v. Yahoo!, Inc. et al Doc. 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION ALOFT MEDIA, LLC, v. Plaintiff, YAHOO!, INC., AT&T, INC., and AOL LLC,
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Case :-cv-00-ieg-ksc Document Filed 0// Page of 0 0 Matthew C. Bernstein (Bar No. 0 MBernstein@perkinscoie.com Perkins Coie LLP El Camino Real, Suite 00 San Diego, CA 0 Telephone: ( 0- Facsimile: ( 0-
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION TRANSDATA, INC., Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION NO. v. 6:11-cv-113 DENTON COUNTY ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC., d/b/a COSERV ELECTRIC
More informationCase 6:15-cv Document 1 Filed 01/13/15 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION COMPLAINT
Case 6:15-cv-00042 Document 1 Filed 01/13/15 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION ADAPTIX, INC., Plaintiff, v. ERICSSON, INC., TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TEXARKANA DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
Case 5:07-cv-00156-DF-CMC Document 1-1 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TEXARKANA DIVISION ESN, LLC, v. Plaintiff, CISCO SYSTEMS, INC.,
More informationCase 2:13-cv RAJ Document 1 Filed 08/30/10 Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION
Case 2:13-cv-00157-RAJ Document 1 Filed 08/30/10 Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION TRITON TECH OF TEXAS, LLC, v. Plaintiff, NINTENDO OF
More informationCase 2:16-cv Document 1 Filed 12/09/16 Page 1 of 8 PageID #: 1
Case 2:16-cv-01388 Document 1 Filed 12/09/16 Page 1 of 8 PageID #: 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION MICOBA LLC Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION NO. v. JURY
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE. Plaintiff, Civil Action No. COMPLAINT
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE BEACON NAVIGATION GMBH, v. Plaintiff, Civil Action No. HYUNDAI MOTOR COMPANY; HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA; AND HYUNDAI MOTOR MANUFACTURING ALABAMA,
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS. Plaintiff, Civil Action No.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS LEXINGTON LUMINANCE LLC, v. Plaintiff, Civil Action No. AMAZON.COM, INC. and AMAZON DIGITAL SERVICES, INC., Defendants. COMPLAINT FOR PATENT
More informationCase 1:10-cv CMH -TRJ Document 1 Filed 09/08/10 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Case 1:10-cv-01007-CMH -TRJ Document 1 Filed 09/08/10 Page 1 of 9 'ILED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA ALEXANDRIA DIVISION 01 COMMUNIQUE LABORATORY, INC. ) Cvf^
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION SURGIBIT IP HOLDINGS PTY, LIMITED ) An Australia Corporation ) 13 Lancaster Crescent ) Collaroy NSW 2097 ) AUSTRALIA
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION
Case 6:10-cv-00068-LED Document 1 Filed 02/27/2010 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION SONIX TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD v. Plaintiff, VTECH ELECTRONICS NORTH AMERICA,
More informationCase 2:14-cv JRG-RSP Document 9 Filed 08/08/14 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: 227
Case 2:14-cv-00799-JRG-RSP Document 9 Filed 08/08/14 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: 227 ECLIPSE IP LLC, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION Plaintiff, v. LUXI
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION LakeSouth Holdings, LLC, Plaintiff, v. Ace Hardware Corporation, Defendant. Civil Action No. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ORIGINAL
More informationCase 1:18-cv Document 1 Filed 11/30/18 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: 1
Case 1:18-cv-00608 Document 1 Filed 11/30/18 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS BEAUMONT DIVISION DRONE LABS LLC ) Plaintiffs, ) ) CASE NO. v.
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION CASE NO. v. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION R.D. JONES, STOP EXPERTS, INC., and RRFB GLOBAL, INC., Plaintiffs, CASE NO. v. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED INTELLIGENT TRAFFIC, Defendant.
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case :-cv-00 Document Filed 0// Page of 0 Page ID #: 0 Randall J. Sunshine (SBN ) rsunshine@linerlaw.com Ryan E. Hatch (SBN ) rhatch@linerlaw.com Jason L. Haas (SBN 0) jhaas@linerlaw.com LINER LLP 00 Glendon
More informationCase 1:18-cv LY Document 1 Filed 03/20/18 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION
Case 1:18-cv-00245-LY Document 1 Filed 03/20/18 Page 1 of 7 HARK N TECHNOLOGIES, INC., a Utah corporation, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION v. Plaintiff,
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS. Civil Action No. COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS LEXINGTON LUMINANCE LLC, v. GOOGLE, INC., Plaintiff, Defendant. Civil Action No. COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
More informationCase 2:17-cv Document 1 Filed 03/02/17 Page 1 of 21 PageID: 1
Case 2:17-cv-01457 Document 1 Filed 03/02/17 Page 1 of 21 PageID: 1 Thomas R. Curtin George C. Jones GRAHAM CURTIN A Professional Association 4 Headquarters Plaza P.O. Box 1991 Morristown, New Jersey 07962-1991
More informationCase: 1:16-cv Document #: 1 Filed: 11/15/16 Page 1 of 8 PageID #:1
Case: 1:16-cv-10629 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/15/16 Page 1 of 8 PageID #:1 Gaelco S.A., a Spanish Corporation, and IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION
More informationCase: 1:16-cv Document #: 1 Filed: 02/12/16 Page 1 of 16 PageID #:1
Case: 1:16-cv-02212 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/12/16 Page 1 of 16 PageID #:1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION SIOUX STEEL COMPANY A South Dakota Corporation
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK. Plaintiff Case No.: 1:17-cv-6236 COMPLAINT
Case 1:17-cv-06236 Document 1 Filed 08/17/17 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK THE GREEN PET SHOP ENTERPRISES, LLC, Plaintiff Case No.: 1:17-cv-6236
More informationCase 1:16-cv JMS-MJD Document 1 Filed 01/26/16 Page 1 of 15 PageID #: 1
Case 1:16-cv-00215-JMS-MJD Document 1 Filed 01/26/16 Page 1 of 15 PageID #: 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION CUMMINS LTD. and CUMMINS INC. vs. Plaintiffs
More informationCase 5:16-cv Document 1 Filed 11/07/16 Page 1 of 7
Case :-cv-0 Document Filed /0/ Page of 0 0 MARK W. GOOD (Bar No. 0) TERRA LAW LLP 0 W. San Fernando St., # San Jose, California Telephone: 0--00 Facsimile: 0-- Email: mgood@terra-law.com JONATHAN T. SUDER
More informationCourthouse News Service
-\ IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA PICTURE PATENTS, LLC, ) ) \.L Plaintiff, ) ) Civil Case No. j.'o&cv o?&>4' MONUMENT REALTY LLC, ) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ) Defendant.
More informationCase 1:07-cv MRB Document 6 Filed 11/06/2007 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION
Case 1:07-cv-00852-MRB Document 6 Filed 11/06/2007 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION ESCORT, INC., Plaintiff, V. COBRA ELECTRONICS CORPORATION,
More informationCase 1:16-cv UNA Document 1 Filed 04/19/16 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE COMPLAINT
Case 1:16-cv-00275-UNA Document 1 Filed 04/19/16 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE Boston Scientific Corporation and Boston Scientific Scimed, Inc.,
More informationCase 2:16-cv RJS Document 2 Filed 09/29/16 Page 1 of 15
Case 2:16-cv-01011-RJS Document 2 Filed 09/29/16 Page 1 of 15 A. John Pate (Utah Bar No. 6303) jpate@patebaird.com Gordon K. Hill (Utah Bar No. 9361) ghill@patebaird.com PATE BAIRD, PLLC 36 West Fireclay
More informationCase 2:18-cv JRG Document 1 Filed 08/13/18 Page 1 of 25 PageID #: 1
Case 2:18-cv-00353-JRG Document 1 Filed 08/13/18 Page 1 of 25 PageID #: 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION LEMAIRE ILLUMINATION TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,
More informationCase 1:16-cv Document 1 Filed 03/04/16 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: 1
Case 1:16-cv-00065 Document 1 Filed 03/04/16 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS BEAUMONT DIVISION PRAXAIR, INC., PRAXAIR TECHNOLOGY, INC. Plaintiffs,
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE COMPLAINT
Case 1:99-mc-09999 Document 606 Filed 10/28/11 Page 1 of 10 PageID #: 53338 ECOPHARM USA, LLC IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE Plaintiff, v. C.A. No. RALCO NUTRITION, INC.
More informationCase 1:15-cv Document 1 Filed 02/27/15 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS. COMPLAINT and Jury Demand
Case 1:15-cv-10597 Document 1 Filed 02/27/15 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS DUNE JEWELRY, INC. Plaintiff, v. REBECCA JAMES, LLC, Defendant. Civil Action No. 1:15-cv-10597
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION PLAINTIFF S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION ILIFE TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Plaintiff, v. NINTENDO OF AMERICA, INC., Defendant. Civil Action No. 3:13-cv-4987 Jury Trial Demanded PLAINTIFF
More informationCase 9:16-cv RLR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/15/2016 Page 1 of 6
Case 9:16-cv-80588-RLR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/15/2016 Page 1 of 6 SHIPPING and TRANSIT, LLC, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA vs. Plaintiff, STATE
More informationCase 2:16-cv RWS Document 1 Filed 10/14/16 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: 1
Case 2:16-cv-01162-RWS Document 1 Filed 10/14/16 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION ROTHSCHILD PATENT IMAGING LLC, Plaintiff,
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
CASE 0:09-cv-03335-DWF -TNL Document 3 Filed 04/09/10 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA 3M Innovative Properties Company and 3M Company, vs. Plaintiffs, Tredegar
More informationCase 1:11-cv REB Document 1 Filed 12/15/11 Page 1 of 5
Case 1:11-cv-00636-REB Document 1 Filed 12/15/11 Page 1 of 5 Lane M. Chitwood, ISB No. 8577 lchitwood@parsonsbehle.com Peter M. Midgley, ISB No. 6913 pmidgley@parsonsbehle.com John N. Zarian, ISB No. 7390
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION IP CO., LLC, d/b/a Intus IQ Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION FILE v. INGERSOLL-RAND COMPANY; INGERSOLL-RAND SCHLAGE LOCK HOLDING
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA WESTERN DIVISION INTEX RECREATION CORP.,
Case :-cv-0 Document Filed 0// Page of Page ID #: 0 FAEGRE BAKER DANIELS LLP Tarifa B. Laddon (SBN 0) 0 S. Bundy Dr., Suite Los Angeles, CA 00 Telephone: 0-00- Fax: 0-00- Tarifa.laddon@faegrebd.com R.
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case :-cv-0 Document Filed 0/0/ Page of Page ID #: Ronald P. Oines (State Bar No. 0) roines@rutan.com Benjamin C. Deming (State Bar No. ) bdeming@rutan.com RUTAN & TUCKER, LLP Anton Boulevard, Fourteenth
More informationCase 2:18-cv JJT Document 1 Filed 02/06/18 Page 1 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA. Defendant.
Case :-cv-000-jjt Document Filed 0/0/ Page of 0 0 LAW OFF ICES OF VENJ UR IS, P. C. EAS T OSB ORN ROAD PHOE N IX, AR IZONA 0 TE LE PH ONE ( 0 ) -00 FACS IM ILE ( 0 ) E-M AIL DOC KE T IN G@VE N JUR IS.COM
More informationCase 3:17-cv AJB-KSC Document 1 Filed 05/23/17 PageID.1 Page 1 of 8
Case :-cv-00-ajb-ksc Document Filed 0// PageID. Page of 0 DAVID M. BECKWITH (CSB NO. 0) davidbeckwith@sandiegoiplaw.com TREVOR Q. CODDINGTON, PH.D. (CSB NO. 0) trevorcoddington@sandiegoiplaw.com JAMES
More informationCase 2:16-cv Document 1 Filed 12/09/16 Page 1 of 8 PageID #: 1
Case 2:16-cv-01392 Document 1 Filed 12/09/16 Page 1 of 8 PageID #: 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION MICOBA LLC Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION NO. v. JURY
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
Case 1:16-cv-04110-TWT Document 1 Filed 11/02/16 Page 1 of 22 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA IRONBURG INVENTIONS LTD. a United Kingdom Limited Company, Plaintiff,
More informationCase 3:14-cv RS-EMT Document 1 Filed 03/28/14 Page 1 of 11
Case 3:14-cv-00151-RS-EMT Document 1 Filed 03/28/14 Page 1 of 11 SPIKER, INC. Plaintiff, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA PENSACOLA DIVISION v. Civil Action No.
More informationCase 2:17-cv Document 1 Filed 01/12/17 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: 1
Case 2:17-cv-00038 Document 1 Filed 01/12/17 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION SOMALTUS LLC, Plaintiff, Case No: vs. PATENT
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION. Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:18-cv-3055
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION RING PROTECTION LLC Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:18-cv-3055 v. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NEC CORPORATION OF AMERICA Defendant.
More informationCase 2:15-cv Document 1 Filed 04/14/15 Page 1 of 12 PageID #: 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION
Case 2:15-cv-00503 Document 1 Filed 04/14/15 Page 1 of 12 PageID #: 1 INTUITIVE BUILDING CONTROLS, INC., IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION Plaintiff, Case
More informationCase 2:14-cv JRG Document 1 Filed 09/12/14 Page 1 of 14 PageID #: 1 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED COMPLAINT
Case 2:14-cv-00892-JRG Document 1 Filed 09/12/14 Page 1 of 14 PageID #: 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION INDUSTRIAL PRINT TECHNOLOGIES LLC, a Texas
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION. Case No. 3:13-cv N
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION EMPLOYMENT LAW COMPLIANCE, INC., Plaintiff, vs. Case No. 3:13-cv-04197-N EMPOWER SOFTWARE SOFTWARE Jury Trial Demanded
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case :-cv-0 Document Filed /0/ Page of Page ID #: 0 Rodger K. Carreyn (Bar No. 0) rcarreyn@perkinscoie.com One East Main Street, Suite Madison, WI Telephone: 0--0 Facsimile: 0-- Michael J. Song (Bar No.
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION. Civil Action No: HON. COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
2:14-cv-10207-SFC-LJM Doc # 1 Filed 01/16/14 Pg 1 of 7 Pg ID 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION RGIS, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, Plaintiff, vs.
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS VICTORIA DIVISION
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS VICTORIA DIVISION MARK N. CHAFFIN Plaintiff, Civil Action No. v. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED MICHAEL R. BRADEN and LBC MANUFACTURING Defendants.
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN GREEN BAY DIVISION COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN GREEN BAY DIVISION ORION ENERGY SYSTEMS, INC. v. Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 16-cv-1250 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ENERGY BANK, INC.,
More informationCase 2:15-cv Document 1 Filed 04/14/15 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION
Case 2:15-cv-00501 Document 1 Filed 04/14/15 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: 1 INTUITIVE BUILDING CONTROLS, INC., IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION Plaintiff, Case No.
More informationCase 2:15-cv Document 1 Filed 06/19/15 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
Case 2:15-cv-01079 Document 1 Filed 06/19/15 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS CYPALEO LLC Plaintiff, Case No: vs. PATENT CASE ASUS COMPUTER
More informationCase 3:16-cv N Document 1 Filed 02/09/16 Page 1 of 11 PageID 1
Case 3:16-cv-00364-N Document 1 Filed 02/09/16 Page 1 of 11 PageID 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION NAUTILUS HYOSUNG INC., Plaintiff, v. DIEBOLD,
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
Case :-cv-0 Document Filed 0// Page of Page ID #: 0 JAMES C. YOON, State Bar jyoon@wsgr.com ALBERT SHIH, State Bar ashih@wsgr.com WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI Professional Corporation 0 Page Mill Road
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION
ROTATABLE TECHNOLOGIES LLC, v. Plaintiff, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION 1. ACER AMERICA CORPORATION; 2. ADOBE SYSTEMS INCORPORATED 3. ARCHOS S.A.;
More informationCase 2:15-cv Document 1 Filed 05/29/15 Page 1 of 15 PageID #: 1
Case 2:15-cv-00898 Document 1 Filed 05/29/15 Page 1 of 15 PageID #: 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION AUTOMATION MIDDLEWARE SOLUTIONS, INC., v. Plaintiff,
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil Action No.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION RIDDELL, INC., v. Plaintiff, RAWLINGS SPORTING GOODS COMPANY, INC., Defendant. Civil Action No.: Jury Trial Demanded
More informationCase 2:14-cv Document 1 Filed 03/11/14 Page 1 of 15 PageID #: 1
Case 2:14-cv-00208 Document 1 Filed 03/11/14 Page 1 of 15 PageID #: 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION CPUMATE INC. and GOLDEN SUN NEWS TECHNIQUES
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE ) ) ) Plaintiff,
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE OPTICAL DEVICES, LLC, Plaintiff, Civil Action No. v. COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT TOSHIBA CORPORATION AND TOSHIBA AMERICA INFORMATION
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION
Case 2:09-cv-00807-EAS-TPK Document 1 Filed 09/15/09 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION ABERCROMBIE & FITCH CO. and : ABERCROMBIE & FITCH TRADING CO.,
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION Advanced Processor Technologies LLC Plaintiff, v. Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. Defendant. Civil Action No. 2:12-cv-155
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION. Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION NO. v. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH INSTITUTE, Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION NO. v. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED LG CORPORATION, LG ELECTRONICS,
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS EXERGEN CORPORATION Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. KAZ USA, INC. a JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Defendant. EXERGEN CORPORATION S COMPLAINT FOR PATENT
More informationCase 3:17-cv M Document 1 Filed 07/26/17 Page 1 of 7 PageID 1
Case 3:17-cv-01986-M Document 1 Filed 07/26/17 Page 1 of 7 PageID 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION SOMALTUS LLC, Plaintiff, Case No: vs. PATENT CASE
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION
Case 1:18-cv-05640-SCJ Document 1 Filed 12/11/18 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION TECHNICAL LED INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, LLC, a Delaware limited liability
More informationCase 6:15-cv Document 1 Filed 04/06/15 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: 1
Case 6:15-cv-00380 Document 1 Filed 04/06/15 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: 1 POWER REGENERATION, LLC, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION v. Plaintiff, SIEMENS
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK COMPLAINT
Case 1:14-cv-08423-GBD Document 2 Filed 10/22/14 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Marshall Feature Recognition, LLC Plaintiff, V. Terra Holdings, LLC, 14-civ-8423
More informationCase 8:17-cv EAK-JSS Document 114 Filed 07/30/18 Page 1 of 11 PageID 2433 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION
Case 8:17-cv-01346-EAK-JSS Document 114 Filed 07/30/18 Page 1 of 11 PageID 2433 STEVEN J. KANIADAKIS Plaintiff, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION v. Case No: 8:17-cv-1346-T-17-JSS
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
1 2 7 8 9 10 11 12 DYKEMA GOSSETT LLP Allan Gabriel (SBN 777) agabriel@dykema.com S. Grand Avenue, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (21) 7-170 Facsimile: (21) 7-180 Aaron D. Charfoos (IL 27722,
More informationCase 1:10-cv GMS Document 1-3 Filed 06/21/10 Page 1 of 11 PageID #: 71 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
Case 1:10-cv-00544-GMS Document 1-3 Filed 06/21/10 Page 1 of 11 PageID #: 71 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE APPLE INC., vs. Plaintiff, High Tech Computer Corp., a/k/a
More informationCOMPLAINT. Plaintiff, The Green Pet Shop Enterprises, LLC ( Green Pet Shop or. Plaintiff ), by and through its attorneys, THE RANDO LAW FIRM P.C.
Case 1:18-cv-04526 Document 1 Filed 08/09/18 Page 1 of 11 PageID #: 1 Attorneys for Plaintiff: THE RANDO LAW FIRM P.C. 6800 Jericho Turnpike Suite 120W Syosset, NY 11791 (516) 799-9800 CARLSON, GASKEY
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION. Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:15-cv-50
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION WETRO LAN LLC, v. Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:15-cv-50 D-LINK SYSTEMS, INCORPORATED, Defendant. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
More informationCase 6:18-cv Document 1 Filed 01/31/18 Page 1 of 9 PageID #: 1
Case 6:18-cv-00036 Document 1 Filed 01/31/18 Page 1 of 9 PageID #: 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION SPIDER SEARCH ANALYTICS LLC Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION
More informationCase 1:10-cv Document 1 Filed 02/09/10 Page 1 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
Case 1:10-cv-00874 Document 1 Filed 02/09/10 Page 1 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS INTERNET MEDIA CORPORATION, Plaintiff, vs. CHICAGO TRIBUNE CORPORATION,
More informationCase: 1:17-cv Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/15/17 1 of 12. PageID #: 1
Case: 1:17-cv-02403 Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/15/17 1 of 12. PageID #: 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION ETi SOLID STATE LIGHTING, INC., ) CASE NO. 1:17-cv-2403
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NOTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS. Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:18-cv v. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NOTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS INERGETIC AB Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:18-cv-1686 v. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED MURATA ELECTRONICS NORTH AMERICA, INC. Defendant. COMPLAINT
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION HITACHI CONSUMER ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Case No. ) TOP VICTORY ELECTRONICS (TAIWAN)
More informationCase 2:18-cv Document 1 Filed 05/09/18 Page 1 of 11 PageID #: 1
Case 2:18-cv-00198 Document 1 Filed 05/09/18 Page 1 of 11 PageID #: 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION SEMCON IP INC., Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL KORS
More informationCase 2:17-cv JRG Document 1 Filed 04/13/17 Page 1 of 9 PageID #: 1
Case 2:17-cv-00308-JRG Document 1 Filed 04/13/17 Page 1 of 9 PageID #: 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION DOCUMENT SECURITY SYSTEMS, INC., v. Plaintiff,
More information